- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing all the Respondents.
(2.) PETITION is being decided finally at the 'admission stage' as agreed by learned Counsel for the parties as also contemplated under Rules of Court. Petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 21/26-4-2001 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) rejecting petitioner's representation dated 13-2-2001 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) filed in pursuance to the High Court judgment and order dated 2-1-2001 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition ). Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew notice of the Court that his representation (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) filed in pursuance to the High Court judgment and order dated 2-1-2001 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) has been rejected only on the ground that his earlier representation has a1ready been rejected by Inspector General (Registration), U. P. , Allahabad vide order March 5, 1997. Learned Standing Counsel is not able to defend the said order obviously for the reasons that Inspector General (Registration) could not sit in appeal over aforesaid judgment and order dated 2-1-2001 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) and/or otherwise over-reach the directions contained in the said judgment and frustrate the said judgment itself on the ground that earlier representation has already been rejected vide order dated 5-3-1997 (i. e. prior to the aforementioned judgment and order) has miserably failed to appreciate that rejection of the representation on matters like regularisation cannot operate as res judicata. Even if the representation of a person seeking regularisation is rejected, he may be entitled for regularisation subsequently by virtue of his continuous working and changed circumstances. The subsequent representation has to be considered on merit and concerned authority must find out that whether such a person satisfies essential condition and test provided under regularisation rules. In fact, Respondent No. 1 by flouting the direction given by this Court in its judgment and order dated 2-1-2001 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) and absolutely on unsustainable and frivolous ground failed to exercise jurisdiction in an arbitrary ground which amounts to flouting directions of the Court.
(3.) IMPUGNED order dated 21/26-4-2001 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by Respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and a direction deserves to be issued to decide the representation of the petitioner on merit considering whether petitioner is eligible for regularisation under relevant regularisation rules. Consequently, impugned order dated 21/26-4-2001 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by Respondent No. 1 is quashed.;